Doctor answers this Objection Now saith he this Argument is fallacious for tho Christ be God himself yet if there be Three Persons in the God-head the Equality and Sameness of Nature does not destroy the Subordination of the Persons A Son is Equal to his Father by Nature but Inferior to him as his Son Now where is the Fallacy but in the Author's Answer His Comparison of a Father with his Son is short of his purpose for tho a Son be equal to his Father by Nature yet he is not equal to him in Authority and Power and therefore a Father is truly greater than his Son is his Head and can command him This is not meerly a Subordination of Order but of Power and Authority also But it is not so with the Father and Son in the Trinity they are not only equal by Nature in the Author's Hypothesis but in Power and Authority as they have the same Nature so they have the same Attributes whereby they are equal to one another in all Things Now if it be so how can the Father be said to be greater than the Son who is as great as himself How can he be called his Head which imports some Authority over Christ As appears from 1 Cor. 11. 3. But I would have you know that the Head of every Man is Christ and the Head of the Woman is the Man and the Head of Christ is God It appears by this place that God is the Head of Christ as Christ is the Head of every Man and the Man the Head of the Woman Now Christ's being the Head of every Man imports some Power and Authority over every Man as the Man's being Head of the Woman imports a Power and Authority over the Woman and consequently God's being the Head of Christ must import an Authority and Power over Christ else the Comparison would be unreasonable fallacious and impertinent But I say how can God be called the Head of Christ in such a Sense if Christ be as Great and have as great Power and Authority as God has how can God be called his God To be ones God is as much as to be his Benefactor and his Protector according to the stile of Scripture but Christ being All-mighty and self-sufficient how can the Father be stiled his God that is his Benefactor and Protector I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God John 20. 17. My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Mat. 27. 46. How could Christ say these things on the Doctor 's Hypothesis for being God as well as the Father He must no less forsake himself than the Father forsook him and he might as well call himself his own God and complain of himself that he had forsaken himself Nay being himself Almighty God as well as the Father and being able to comfort himself in his Sufferings how comes he to invoke the Father or to call him his God for those Words plainly shew that He expected and desired from the Father the Assistance which He could not perform to Himself Furthermore how can we forbear conceiving Two Gods according to this Hypothesis Christ who invokes the Father is God the Father whom He invokes is God also consequently there are Two distinct Gods Can he that invokes and he that is invoked be one and the same Being I always thought that this supposed two several Beings Lastly If our Lord Christ were himself God how could any command him He has all the Power and all the Authority that the Father has He is no more subject to the Father than the Father to him nay the Father and He are but One God The Author goes on If the Father as I have explained it be original Mind and Wisdom the Son a Personal subsisting but reflex Image of the Father's Wisdom thô their Eternal Wisdom be equal and the same yet the Original is Superiour to the Image the Father to the Son And therefore thô I know such Texts as he alledges My Father is greater than I The Head of Christ is God I ascend to my Father and your Father to my God and your God are both by Ancient and Modern Expositors applied to Christ's humane Nature yet I see no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to his Divine Person and his Relation to the Father For the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity and therefore the Father may be called his God Let us consider this Paragraph The Son is a Personal Subsisting but Reflex Image of his Father's Wisdom What Gibberish is this Has the Doctor found any where in Scripture that the Son is a Personal Subsisting but Reflex Image of his Father's Wisdom Why does he not speak the Language of Scripture If his Words have any Sense he means that the Father reflects upon his own Knowledge and Wisdom but how comes he to fancy that a reflected Wisdom or to reflect on ones own Wisdom is a Divine Person and an Intelligent Being One would think it only an Act of God to reflect upon his own Knowledg or other Perfections without dreaming of a Divine Person but Metaphysicians it seems have a clearer Sight than other People what is to others only an Act of God the Metaphysician discerns to be a Divine Person 2. The Original saith the Author is Superiour to the Image the Father to the Son But the Superiority in the Trinity is only a Superiority of Order which can admit of no such Expressions as Greater than Christ the Head of Christ the God of Christ as I shewed before He sees he saith no Inconvenience in owning this to be true with respect to Christ's Divine Person and his Relation to his Father because the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity I will shew more particularly the ridiculousness of this Assertion by insisting upon the first of the Passages before cited as I have done upon the two others Our Saviour seeing his Disciples sorrowful because He had told them that He was going to his Father and being willing to comfort them and to lessen their Sadness tells them John 14. 18. If ye loved me ye would rejoyce because I said I go unto the Father For my Father is greater than I. One would think that Christ's meaning is That the Disciples should be glad to hear that he leaves the World to go to his Father because his Father being greater than He would undoubtedly crown his Obedience with an immortal Glory and a Name which is above every Name But this Author has found out another Sense which is worth the observing If ye loved me ye would rejoyce because I said I go to the Father for the Father is greater than I that is to say the Father is the Head and Fountain of the Deity This would have been a very unsignificant Comfort Be not sorrowful for my leaving this World and going to the Father For the Father is the first Person of the Trinity Yet
of natural Reason does it contradict Reason tells us that Three Gods cannot be One God but does Reason tell us that Three Divine Persons cannot be One God If my Reason be like other Mens I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it does neither affirm nor deny it Is not this an admirable Argument which consists only in an Interrogation and in a meer denial of the difficulty proposed in the Objection What Principle of natural Reason does it contradict Does Reason tell us that Three Divine Persons cannot be one God Here is the Interrogation or Query To which I answer Yes it does contradict a plain Principle of natural Reason even this that Three cannot be One If my Reason be like other Mens I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it doth neither affirm nor deny it Here is a meer denial of the difficulty I judge the Author's Reason must needs be very weak and corrupted seeing it likes well this falshood that Three are One and finds no fault with it Those unquestionably have a better sight and a more sound Reason who discern it implies a Contradiction that Three be but One because they perceive and acknowledg that Three is three times One and therefore cannot be only once One. Well saith the Doctor pleading for his Adversaries if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons each of which is God we must believe Three distinct Gods I hope not when we profess to believe but One God Yes whatever we profess to believe Three such distinct Persons must be Three Gods Now this we deny and challenge them to produce any plain Principle of Reason to prove that it must be so Natural Reason teaches Nothing about the Personality of the Godhead it teaches One God but whether this One God be One or Three Persons it says not and therefore He may be either without contradicting the natural Notions we have of One God and then there is free scope for Revelation and if Revelation teaches there is but One God and that there are Three Divine Persons each of which hath in Scripture not only the Title but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to him then we must of necessity believe a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and one God For what the Scripture affirms and Reason does not deny is a proper Object of our Faith and then this Objection against this Faith that Three distinct Divine Persons must be Three distinct Gods if each of them be God is sensless and ridiculous I have transcribed this whole Paragraph because it deserves some particular Reflection 1. I observe that it contains no positive Proofs but a meer denial The Author is extreamly confident and bold and yet all his reasonings may be resolved into I hope not and this we deny Indeed this is a very short way of answering Objections and as easy as to burn Books that are unanswerable There lies an Objection cross in his way that if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons we must believe Three distinct Gods To this he answers I hope not when we profess to believe but one God Is this a direct Confutation must we be satisfied with such an Answer because Trinitarians profess that Three Divine Persons are but one God does it follow that it is true and cannot be doubted of He hopes not and he denies it therein lies the strength of his Argument and Answer 2. I should have added he challenges for this is his third way of confuting Objections He challenges us to produce any plain Principle of Reason to prove that Three distinct Divine Persons must be Three Gods But we have a plain Principle of Reason at hand to answer his Challenge to wit that it implies a Contradiction that Three be but One. 3. Here is a most absurd and ridiculous Paradox as I ever heard of Natural Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of God or the Godhead it teaches One God but whether this One God be One or Three Persons it says not What If Reason tells us that there is One God He must be One Intelligent Being Now according to Reason we have no other Idea of Unity but such as we have of a Man a Beast and a Tree Therefore as Reason teaches that a Man is one Person because he is one Intelligent Being so it follows that according to Human Reason God is but one Person being but one Intelligent Being Reason does not tell us that the Unity of God is different from the Unity of a Man it produces in our Minds the same Idea of both which being applied to God as well as to Man must needs denote One Person or Intelligent Being in opposition to Two or Three Nay if Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of the Godhead which the Author does not think fit to prove what Idea can we have of the Vnity of God by Reason As long as we are ignorant whether God be one or three Persons our Idea of him must needs be more imperfect than of any other Being in that very Notion which is so familiar to us and which God himself has so much urged viz. his Unity This is so false a Principle and so contrary to the Dictates of Reason that there never was any Man taught by Reason that there is but one God but did believe at the same time that He is but one Person The Author should not have ventur'd abroad such a Philosophy contrary to the Reason of all Mankind but ought to have kept it for himself Now I find that the Scripture doth perfectly agree with Reason This tells me that there is but one God who is but one Person That teaches me the same and also that the Father of our Lord Christ is that one God both of them contrary to the Doctrine of the Trinity 4. He saith that there are Three Divine Persons each of which have in Scripture not only the Title but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to them But where is the Holy Ghost called God in Scripture He is indeed called the Spirit of God but never God himself and being the Power of God 't is no wonder that such things are ascribed to him as are ascribed to God himself Thus it is ordinary to ascribe to a Man's Courage what he has done himself and yet his Courage is no Person nor distinct from him This I say only by the way to shew the strangeness of his Consequences But I shall say nothing here of the Son and indeed seeing he brings no particular Instances of what he advances there is no need to insist any longer upon it CHAP. III. I come now to examine his Answers to the Objections against the Trinity in the brief History of the Unitarians THE First Objection p. 154. If our Lord Christ were himself God there could be no Person greater than He none that might be called his Head or God none that could in any respect command him Let us hear How the
and an Holy Spirit different from both Nay we must not think that the very express Words at Mat. 24. 36. the Father only do indeed signify the Father only but the Father the Son and another Person even thô the Son is there expresly said not to know the Day and Hour of Judgment and that the Father only knows it These are some of the Illuminations with which our Author and his Party has blest the World He goes on and says the Dispute must end here whether the Scripture does teach the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost for if so when the Father is said to be the only true God and the one God the Son and Holy Spirit are not hereby excluded from the Unity of the same Godhead I answer the Dispute may be soon ended for when the Father is called the one God and the only true God even in those places where the Son is mentioned This alone is a clear Demonstration that the Scripture does not teach the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost Were the Son and Holy Ghost God with the Father the Prayer of our Lord at John 17. 1 2 3 c. must have been thus framed This is Life Eternal to know Thee Father and Me and the Holy Ghost to be the only true God And Paul to the Corinthians should have said But to us there is but one God the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost But this is the Language of Scripture no where Pag. 186. His other Texts saith our Author prove no more but that the Father of Christ is God not that Christ is not one God with the Father Let us hear the Texts themselves 1 Cor. 15. 24. Then cometh the end when he shall deliver up the Kingdom to God even the Father James 3. 9. Therewith bless we God even the Father Rom. 15. 6. That ye may with one Mind and one Mouth glorify God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is an affected blindness and perverseness not to discern and own that in these Texts God even the Father is as much as to say God that is to say the Father No plainer or more express Words could be used by a Socinian or other Vnitarian to declare his Notion of the Unity of God What hope is there of convincing those with whom the Father only shall not signify the Father only And again God that is to say the Father shall be two others besides the Father CHAP. V. THE next Argument If Christ were indeed God as well as Man or as Trinitarians speak God the Son Incarnate it had been altogether superfluous to give the Holy Spirit to his said Human Nature as a Director and Guide for what other help could that Nature need which was one Person with as they speak God the Son and in which God the Son did Personally dwell To this he answers The account of this is plain and short for the whole Trinity is but one Energy and Power and the Divine Persons cannot act separately ad extra what the Father does that the Son does and that the Holy Ghost does by one Individual Act. But the Sanctification of all Creatures and such is the Human Nature of Christ is peculiarly attributed to the Holy Spirit But if the whole Trinity is but one Energy and Power the Sanctification of Christ's Human Nature or of any other Creature can by no means be peculiarly attributed to the Holy Ghost why to the Holy Ghost rather than to the Father or than to the Divine Word or Son dwelling as they say after a peculiar manner in Christ But the matter is plain the Holy Ghost is the Power of God of which Christ stood in need for performing the Will and Works of the Father and which God bestowed on him for that very end but if Christ had been indeed God there had been no need he should receive any such Gift for as God he would have had it in his own Person Our Author adds He might as well have asked why the Sanctification of the Church is ascribed to the Spirit But the Historian had no reason to ask such a Question for no one pretends that the Church is God or is Personally united either to the Father or Son as Trinitarians say the Human Nature of Christ is It is after the same slight and insignificant manner that he answers the next Argument even this The Miracles of Christ are attributed always either to the Father or the Holy Spirit dwelling in him He answers pag. 188. Father Son and Holy Spirit act together I say now supposing this which he says yet if Christ were God why should we never ascribe his Miracles to himself why always to the Father or to the Holy Spirit which is the Power of the Father why has he concealed a matter of so great importance to be known Or why do we seek to make him greater than he ever said he was Besides in the very Texts in which he ascribes the Miracles he did to the Father or the Spirit and Power of the Father dwelling in him I say in those very Texts he denies that he doth them himself which is directly contrary to what our Author affirms that the pretended three Divine Persons have but one Energy and act by one Individual Act. If that were so our Saviour could not have said John 5. 30. I can do nothing of my self John 14. 10. The Father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works Let us hear the account which St. Peter gives Acts 10. 38. God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with Power who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed with the Devil for God was with him Here St. Peter teaches that Christ wrought all sorts of Miracles not because as Trinitarians say he was God but because God was with him i. e. God helped and assisted him by anointing him with the Holy Ghost and with Power The next Argument is Had our Lord Christ been more than a Man the Prophecies of the Old Testament in which he is promised would not describe him barely as the Seed of the Woman the Seed of Abraham a Prophet like unto Moses the Servant and Missionary of God on whom God's Spirit should rest The Historian by a particular Induction of Texts shews this to be the Character of Christ in the Prophecies of the Old Testament Our Author thinks fit to answer this Objection in another place I come now to his Answers which he makes to the Arguments against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost The First Argument in the History is this The Holy Ghost or Spirit and the Power of God are in Scripture spoken of as one and the same thing Our Author answers at pag. 189. It is as easy to prove that the Father and Son are no Persons as that the Holy Spirit is none But if he can make good this Assertion erit mihi magnus Apollo The Father has in the New Testament
how Unintelligible soever it be because we do very clearly conceive that God is able to raise our dead Bodies We don't apprehend the manner of this Resurrection how it shall be performed is a thing Unintelligible to us but however 't is altogether free from a Contradiction Were the Trinity as clearly set down in Scripture and as free from Contradiction we would not disbelieve it how Unintelligible soever it appeared to us no more than we disbelieve the Resurrection But the Trinity being not only Unintelligible but Contradictions we deny it is taught in Scripture which is altogether free from Contradiction Let us hear the Author a little farther We must not indeed saith he expound Scripture contrary to common Sense and to the common Reason of Mankind in such Matters as every Man knows and every Man can judge of but in Matters of pure Revelation which we have no natural Idea of and know nothing of them but what is revealed we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions to reject the plain and express Authority of Revelation For 't is impossible to know what is a Contradiction to the Nature of Things whose Natures we do not understand We must not indeed expound Scripture contrary to common Sense and the common Reason of Mankind in such Matters as every Man knows and every Man can judge of I grant it but what if the Trinity doth contradict the common Reason of Mankind and is of such a Nature as every Man knows and every Man can judge of Then certainly it cannot be contained in Scripture according to this Author himself Indeed we cannot fathom the Essence of an infinite Being no more than as this Author saith the Essence of any created Being yet as we have a distinct knowledg of some Properties of a Finite Being so we have a clear Apprehension of the Attributes of God We cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three we are most certain that One is not Three and that Three are not One. The most simple Men have a clear Apprehension of those two Numbers and therefore are able to judge of them Now the Scripture plainly tells us that there is but One God and every one knows that One God is One Intelligent Infinite Person and therefore cannot be Three such Persons He that has an Idea of One and an Idea of Three must needs perceive that it implies a Contradiction that One be Three and Three One that one God be Three Intelligent Infinite Persons or Beings and Three Intelligent Infinite Beings One God This every one can judge of Therefore we must not expound Scripture saith the Author contrary to common Sense and the common Reason of Mankind in such Matters as every Man knows and every Man can judge of Therefore say I all being capable of judging whether One may be Three and Three One and finding it a plain Contradiction to the common Reason of Mankind all may be assured that it cannot be contained in Scripture But saith the Author in Matters of pure Revelation which we have no natural Idea of and know nothing of 'em but what is revealed we must not pretend some imaginary Contradictions to reject the plain and express Authority of Scripture and Revelation for it is impossible to know what is a Contradiction to the Natures of Things whose Natures we do not understand Now what does the Author mean by the plain and express Authority of Revelation Does he mean that he has found somewhere in Scripture in plain and express Words that there are Three Persons in one Divine Nature or Godhead If it be so let him shew us it I doubt he calls plain and express Authority some false Consequences which he is pleased to draw from Scripture and which none but prejudiced Men would ever think of I wish we could shew a Chinese the Gospel well translated into his own Language and ask him after a serious reading of it what he thought Christ to be It is very likely I think that he would not take him to be the supream God and if any Man should tell him he had overseen so great a Mystery he would undoubtedly answer that he is sure there is no such thing in the Gospel which he read unless there he another Gospel wherein such a Notion is contained I confess there are some Matters of Revelation which we have no natural Idea of and know nothing of them but what is revealed such is the Resurrection of the Dead But then those Matters imply no Contradiction and therefore ought not to be rejected This first the Resurrection may be discovered to us by the Light of Revelation and discovering no Contradiction in it we ought to believe it The second the Trinity clashing altogether with our natural Ideas can be no Matter of Revelation and therefore ought not to be believed The Resurrection is such a Thing as we could never have discovered by the Light of Nature yet as soon as we come to know it we assent to it because we clearly perceive the Possibility thereof and are sure it implies no Contradiction at all but it is not so with the Trinity such a Mystery can never be revealed to us because Revelation cannot be contrary to Reason and therefore the Trinity being contrary to this cannot be the Matter of that God indeed may reveal to us such Objects as are unknown to Humane Reason but let them be never so much above our Reason they will never contradict it It is impossible to know what is a Contradiction to the Nature of Things whose Natures we do not understand Right But we know so much of the Nature of God that He is One and not Three and this is sufficient to show that the Trinity is a Contradiction to the Nature of God What I say is so clear and so notorious a Truth that the Author himself is forced to acknowledg it He saith p. 147. We must not expound Scripture to such a Sense as contradicts the plain and express Maxims of natural Reason For though God reveals such Things to us as natural Reason could not discover and cannot comprehend yet Revelation cannot contradict plain Reason for Truth cannot contradict it self what is true in Revelation can never be false in Reason and what is true by natural Reason can never be false in Revelation All this he grants only he saith that we must be sure there is such a Contradiction it must be evident and express and not made out by uncertain Consequences which many times are not owing to the Nature of Things but to the Imperfection of our own Knowledge This I grant too But the Author won't allow the Trinity to be such a Contradiction and endeavours to prove it Let us hear him He soon perceives the difficulty and therefore brings it in by way of an Objection Yes you 'l say that there should be Three Persons each of which is God and yet but One God is a Contradiction But what Principle
1. The Dignity conferred upon Christ ought not to be called the Supream Government of the World as this Author has stiled it For He acts and governs in Subordination to his Father 2. When the Scripture speaks of this Advancement of Christ it extends it especially over Angels and Men. 3. It is no Indignity to Angels as our Author pretends to be ruled and governed by a Man whom God has exalted above them Angels indeed have some natural Prerogatives above Men whereby they are more excellent Creatures than Men but if it pleases God of his free Gift to invest a Man with greater Dignity Power and all other Excellence than any Angel has why can't He be set over them as their Lord and Ruler in Subordination to God There is no Incongruity in it 4. That contrary to the Author's Assertion a meer Creature may be a fit Lieutenant or Representative of God in Personal and Prerogative Acts of Government or Power Thus Saul and David were set over the Israelites to govern and rule over them by God's Appointment in Subordination to him Nay we do commonly say That the King is the Lieutenant and Representative of God 5. God communicated to Christ such Wisdom and Power as is necessary to enable him to exercise the Dignity conferred on him In all this there is not the least Inconsistency But notwithstanding his foregoing Objections he confesses the Difficulty remains P. 161. If He be by Nature the Son of God and Natural Lord of the World how is He said to be exalted by God and to receive a Kingdom from him as the reward of his Righteousness and Sufferings He was before possessed of it ever since the Foundation of the World being natural Lord of all his Creatures He had no need to receive that which was his own or purchase what was his natural Right by such mean and vile Condescension as suffering Death on the Cross Now to reconcile this he makes a long Discourse concerning the Mediatory Kingdom of Christ which saith he hath been bestowed on the second Person of the Trinity and is peculiar to Him and distinguished from the Natural Government of the World which He has in Conjunction with the Father This Chimerical System I may overthrow I think by that single Text of St. Paul already cited There is one God and one Mediator between God and Men the MAN Christ Jesus If Christ is a Mediator and has the Mediatory Kingdom as He is the second Person of the Trinity that is as He is God why does the Apostle tell us that He is a Mediator bearly as He is Man At least he should have told us that the Mediator is the God-Man Jesus Christ It is unaccountable that the Apostle who in all his Epistles sets forth the Excellency and Glory of Christ in the most expressive Terms should tell us that the MAN Christ Jesus is the Mediator between God and Men if the Mediatory Kingdom is exercised by the Divine Person or Nature and if not Christ Man but Christ God is the Mediator But let us examine the Grounds our Author goes on He tells us ibid. A Mediatory Kingdom was necessary to reconcile God and Men to restore Man to the Integrity of his Nature and this Power and Dignity God bestowed on his own Son who had the most Right to it and was the best qualified for it being the begotten Word and Wisdom of the Father Now one would expect he should cite some Texts of Scripture to prove this Assertion but he could find no place to rely on But Christ must says he first become Man and perform the whole Will of God and then He shall be exalted Whereupon he makes this Observation pag. 162. All the Power Christ is invested with is as Head of the Church God has put all Things under his Feet and given him to be Head over all Things to the Church which is his Body the Fulness of him that filleth all Things Eph. 1. 22 23. That is saith he God has made him Governour of the World as Head of the Church I observe two Things upon this place 1. That this Text is not well interpreted The first part of it relates to the foregoing Verse and ought to be explained by it God saith the Apostle at Ver. 21. Set Christ at his own Right-Hand in the Heavenly Places far above all Principality and Power and every Name that is named not only in this World but in that which is to come Ver. 23. And hath put all Things under his Feet What Things Those that are before mentioned all the Orders of Angels and all Earthly Powers And then follows And gave him to be Head c. This is the sense not that Christ was made Governour of the whole World as Head of the Church 2. But what if all the Power Christ is invested with is as Head of the Church Will it not follow that all the Power He is invested with is as a Man not as God And this also I prove by Col. 1. 18. And He is the Head of the Body the Church who is the Beginning the First-born from the Dead He who is the First-born from the Dead can be no other but the MAN Jesus Christ but He who is the First-born from the Dead is the Head of the Church as that Text expresly saith therefore the MAN Christ Jesus is the Head of the Church Thus the Apostle very plainly telling us that the Mediator and Head of the Church is the Man Christ Jesus destroys our Author's Notion of Christ's Mediatory Kingdom or that it is grounded on and exercised by his Divine Nature or Person Further if Christ God is the Mediator if the Mediatory Kingdom belongs to and is managed by the second Person of the supposed Trinity I don't see how the Government of Israel can be a Type of this Kingdom as this Author says at p. 162 163. For the King of the Israelites was between God and his People and was really diverse from both but Christ in our Author's Hypothesis is God himself One with the Father and the Holy Ghost so that he must be a Mediator between himself and Men which besides that it is contrary to the Notion of a Mediator does wholly destroy the Parallel He says at pag. 164 165. that We certainly know from the Expositions of Christ and his Apostles that the Prophets spake of Christ under the Names of Lord God and Jehovah But I desire him to reconcile these Texts with his Opinion Heb. 1. 1 2. God who at sundry Times and in divers Manners spake in times past to the Fathers by the Prophets hath in these Last Days spoken unto us by his Son Heb. 2. 2 3. For if the Word spoken by Angels was stedfast How shall we escape if we neglect so great Salvation which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord Gal. 3. 19. The Law was ordained by Angels in the Hand of a Mediator i. e. by the Intervention
not My Kingdom is not of this World but from this World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. My Kingdom is not owing to Men but to God's own appointment I am a King indeed but this Kingdom I received from God's own Hands My Kingdom is not from hence as he explains it but from above Acts 2. 36. God has made that same Jesus whom ye crucified both Lord and Christ i. e. King And chap. 17. 31. He has appointed a Day in which he will judge the World in Righteousness by the MAN whom he has ordained 1 Cor. 15. 24 28 Then cometh the end when he shall deliver up the Kingdom to God even the Father Then shall the Son be also subject to him that put all things under him that God may be all in all This I take to be the true account of Christ's Kingdom according to Scripture Thus God performed the Oath which he sware to David even by raising up an Horn of Salvation in his House Luke 1. 69. Thus the Kingdom of Christ who is the Seed of David shall last as long as the Sun and Moon But we no where find in Scripture that this Kingdom is bestowed upon him as he is the Eternal Son of God and Second Person of the Trinity St. Paul was so far from believing that that discoursing of the principal Act of Christ's Kingly Power and Authority viz. his judging the World he says that God has appointed a Day to perform this by the MAN whom he has ordained Acts 17. 31. In a Word as Christ has been exalted by God and has received a Kingdom from him So when the appointed End cometh he shall deliver it up to God and remain SUBJECT to him as St. Paul expresly teaches 1 Cor. 15. 28. These two things demonstratively prove that Christ is a King barely as a Man and that his Mediatory Kingdom so much spoken of by our Author is a Chimera I proceed now to his other Answers to this Objection That Christ knows not the day of Judgment He replies pag. 177. Christ in that Text speaks of himself as Man St. Matthew does not mention the Son which shews that the Son is included in St. Matthew's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 None or no Man and therefore these Texts must speak of Christ only as a Man I answer so they do for he is no more than a Man St. Mark tells us that Christ as the Son of God knows not that Day and Hour Now our Author will have Christ's Sonship founded in his Eternal Generation from the Father and that he is the Son not as he is Man but as he is God so he saith at pag. 166. and elsewhere This is indeed a very easy distinction were it but true but Trinitarians are the Authors of it not Scripture In St. Mark 's Gradation Christ is named after Men and Angels to shew his present Excellence and Exaltation above them but in St. Matthew that very Son of God who is above Men and Angels is included in the None or no Man Thus this glorious Title of the Son of God denotes here Christ Man As the Father in St. Mark is God so the Son of God who knows not that Day and Hour is Christ Man who is so stiled in all the New Testament without any respect to a second Nature CHAP. IV. THE sixth Argument in the Brief History runs thus God giveth what and to whom He pleases He needs not the aid of any other He intreateth not for Himself or his People He cannot die and deriveth his Power from none but Himself But 't is certain that the Lord Christ could not himself without the previous Ordination of the Father confer the prime Dignities of Heaven or of the Church He placed his Safety in his Father's Presence and Help he prayed often and fervently to the Father both for himself and for his Disciples he died and was raised from the Dead by the Father after his Resurrection he received from another all that great Power which he now injoys To this he answers Christ interceeds with no Creature receives Authority from no Creature c. nor from any God neither who is separated from himself For he is One God with the Father and the Holy Ghost That he interceeds with the Father proves indeed that he is a distinct Person from the Father not that he is not one God with him But why I pray does it not prove that he is not one God with the Father For if he intercedes with God can he be that very God with whom he intercedes if he is what need is there for him to intercede Besides this Author says before pag. 167 169 170. The Three Divine Persons can never act separately they have but One Energy and whatever is done they do it by one Individual Act. Now I hope he will grant that Prayer and Intercession are real Acts or Actions I infer therefore when the Son intercedes the Father and Holy Spirit must intercede too Thus Intercession and Prayer are not peculiar to the Son but there are in the Godhead three Intercessors three Beseeching Persons Whom what Person or God does this Trinity beseech Good God! how long shall it be that Men will love Darkness rather than Light and prefer a Novel and Unintelligible Gospel before the old plain and easy One Pag. 183. He says For God to make a Creature Advocate and Mediator is to give a Creature Authority over himself which cannot be for it is a Debasement to the Divine Nature and a reproach to the Divine Wisdom it is as if God did not better know how to dispose of his Grace and Mercy than any Creature does But why so has our Author forgot or is he to learn that Moses thô a meer Creature was a Mediator between God and his People I am sure St. Paul calls him so in these Words at Gal. 3. 19. The Law was ordained by Angels in the Hand of a Mediator And at Deut. 5. 5. He stood between the Lord and them to shew them the Word of the Lord. And the same Apostle tells us that the MAN Jesus Christ is a Mediator between God and Men. Does not the Scripture mention Moses his Intercession with God and that God was moved by his Intreaty Why then does this Author affirm that to intercede with the Authority of a Mediator is above the Nature and Order of Creatures To the next Argument viz. That Jesus Christ is in Holy Scripture always spoken of as a distinct and different Person from God and described to be the Son of God and the Image of God He answers This we own and he had no need to prove it This is a wonderful Argument to convince those who acknowledg Three distinct Persons in the Godhead that Christ is not God because he is a distinct Person from the Father for so according to the Language of Scripture God signifies God the Father when he is distinguished from the Son and Holy Spirit as
Men who only are capable of knowing not of this visible World As indeed the 11th Verse is a plain Explication of Verse 10. St. John expresses in this Chapter the same thing several ways He was in the World He came unto his own The Light shined in Darkness these are equivalent Expressions So also The World knew him not His own received him not the Darkness comprehended it not signify one and the same thing Thus the World was made by him is explained at Ver. 12. thus But as many as received him to them gave he Power to become the Sons of God and by Verse 4 and 9. So that in all this there was no Intention to saythat the Old Creation was the work of Je sus Christ CHAP. VIII HIS second Charge is That Socinianism makes the Jewish Oeconomy very unreasonable and unaccountable pag. 231. because if Christ were no more than a meer Man the Anti-type should fall very short of the Types contained in the Old Testament The Tabernacle and Temple says he was God's House where he chose to dwell by the visible Symbols of his Presence and was so contrived as to be the Figure both of Heaven and Earth for so the Apostle to the Hebrews expresly tells us the Holy of Holies was a Figure of Heaven But we must all confess that this was a very unaccountable and insignificant Ceremony for God who fills Heaven and Earth with his Presence to dwell in an House made with Hands had it not prefigured something more Divine and Mysterious The Temple then was a Figure and we must inquire what it was the Figure of Now a Typical Presence can be a Figure of nothing but a real Presence and God's Personal dwelling among Men for Presence and Habitation can signify nothing but Presence and a Figure must be a Figure of some thing that is real and nothing can answer to a figurative visible Presence of God but a personal visible Presence He goes on and applies this to Christ who at John 2. 19. calls his Body a Temple which says our Author was that in Truth and Reality which the Temple was but a Figure of that is God's Presence on Earth which he explains of his being personally united to Christ's Humane Nature But if Christ be not Incarnate adds he if the Divine Word be not personally united to the Humane Nature the Body of Christ is but a figurative Temple as the Temple at Jerusalem was and then one Figure is made a Type of another which is as great an Absurdity in Types as a Metaphor of a Metaphor in speech I do not remember I ever saw so much trifling so seriously urged in a weighty Question but I have undertaken the drudgery of making Reflections on it and therefore will consider what he has offered 1. That the Temple was a Figure both of Heaven and Earth I am content to admit the Apostle to the Hebrews may be interpreted to that purpose But that it was also a Type of Christ's Body we have no colour from Scripture to affirm it and the Author has offer'd no other ground for it but his own wandring Fancy The Author to the Hebrews who inlarges upon the Temple does not give the least Intimation of this why then should we contrive Types and Figures of our own without any reason for it If this be allowed we may make Types of any thing and increase Figures to an infinite Number If the Author is in love with cold and groundless Allegories every Body is not of his Mind and therefore he should keep them to himself But why should the Temple be a Figure of Christ's Body rather than the Ark God is said all over the Old Testament to dwell between the Cherubims it was the proper Seat of God where he gave forth his Oracles and made his Glory to appear by affording sensible Signs of his Presence If therefore such Allegories had any Signification of future Times and Things it would be more probable that the Ark was a Type of Christ's Body than the Temple the rather because we know already by a Divine Testimony that the Temple was a Figure of some-thing else But he will say that Christ calls his Body a Temple What then so St. Paul calls the Corinthians Ye are says he the Temple of God Was the Temple at Jerusalem a Figure or Type of the Bodies of the Corinthians Or does our Saviour say that he calls his Body a Temple because it was the Anti-type of the Temple of the Jews 2. Tho the Temple were not a Figure of Christ's Body yet it would be no unaccountable and insignificant Ceremony for God to dwell in an House made with Hands to appoint this the place of his Worship c. which our Author thinks to be inexplicable without admitting his Doctrine of the Trinity Who knows not that the Israelites were given to Idolatry and that the pompous way of Worship used among the neighbouring Nations agreed so much to their Fancies that it was necessary to comply with them in this thing that they might be kept from worshipping other Gods and the current of Idolatry be restrained Thus God in his infinite Wisdom thought fit to set up among his People a carnal and sensible Worship and to appoint an House where he would dwell after a particular Manner and afford visible Symbols of his Presence All this he did to accommodate himself to the gross genius of the Israelites and to perswade them to forsake Idols and to acknowledg no other God but himself This was the true reason of the Temple of God's dwelling there and the Glory with which it was sometimes filled and to affirm that all was done to prefigure Christ's Body is a Fancy which the Author might better have kept to himself 3. But suppose the Temple was a Type of Christ's Body yet there is no need God should be incarnate in Christ's Body to answer that Type The Scriptures tell us God was with Christ and in Christ which I hope might be done without an Incarnation or Personal Union as he was in the Temple As God spake in the Temple so he spake in and by Christ But besides all this Christ was greater than the Temple because God was always present with him which cannot be said of the Temple where the Signs of God's Presence were not always visible God's Dwelling in Christ was always conspicuous by the Oracles which he delivered and the Miracles he wrought But he objects a place of Scripture To this says he St. John plainly alludes The Word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us and we beheld his Glory the Glory as of the only-begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tabernacled amongst us fulfilled that Type of God's dwelling in the Tabernacle and Temple at Jerusalem by his dwelling Personally in Humane Nature This Argument or rather Congruity is grounded on two false Suppositions The first is that The Word was made Flesh
free and voluntary Choice when he did not take it but was made so What when the Apostle says that Christ took upon him the Form of a Servant must we say that he did not Is it not a plain Contradiction to the Apostle He adds And what Humility was this for a meer Man to be a Minister and Servant of God and so great a Minister as to be in the Form of God that is as he says to be glorious for Miracles and admired as the great Power of God especially when he was to be exalted unto Heaven for it and advanced above all Principalities and Powers This is such Humility as would have been Pride and Ambition in the most glorious Angel Shall we not call Humility what St. Paul calls so He tells us that the same who has been advanced above all the Orders of Angels humbled himself All the Glory that Christ has been crowned with doth not hinder the Apostle from praising and extolling his Humility Because Christ's Sufferings have been remunerated with a transcendent Glory must they not be accounted Humility but Pride On the contrary the more that he who humbles himself is great and glorious the greater is his Humility Seeing therefore Christ had received from God more Glory than ever any Man had it follows that his Humility was the most stupendious and unparallel'd that ever was But according to our Author's way of reasoning there is no such thing as Christian Humility For every Christian who humbles himself endeavours thereby to fit himself for the Kingdom of Heaven but all our best Actions are not worthy to be compared with that Glory which shall be revealed in us and therefore will our Author say Humility is but a Chimera because he who is said to humble himself expects to get by the means an Eternal Glory Indeed if the most bitter Sufferings of Christ are not to be accounted Humility because they were to be rewarded with a more excellent Glory I cannot see how any Christians may be said to be humble for they expect a glorious and transcendent Reward Pag. 242. After Christ was come into the World there was no place saith our Author for his Choice and Election he could not shew either his Love or his Humility in choosing Poverty or Death and therefore if it was matter of his free Choice and a Demonstration of his great Humility and Love as the Apostle says it was he must and did choose it before he came into the World But all this is contrary to the place of the Apostle wherein he speaks only of what Christ has done since he came into the World and does not so much as mention what he had done before Which has forced several Trinitarian Interpreters to acknowledg that this Text does not relate to the Incarnation I desire our Author to tell me the meaning of these words Who being in the Form of God thought it not Robbery to be equal with God For if to be in the Form of God signifies to be the true God then the sense will be this Christ being the true God thought it not Robbery to be equal with the true God Which is just as if one should say Leopold who is Emperour does not think it Robbery to be equal with the Emperour Is it possible Men should put such a trifling sense on the words of an Apostle Besides how can it be said here that the Supream God made himself of no Reputation In a word of all the things spoken of Christ in this place not one of them can be applied to the Supream God which plainly shews that the Man Christ Jesus only did humble himself and that this Humility is so far from proving that Christ is God that it demonstrates he was only a Man He goes on The Faith and Worship of Christ is the distinguishing Character of the Christian Religion That the Faith of Christ is the distinguishing Character of the Christian Religion I grant but I deny that the Worship of Christ is so too I suppose by the Worship of Christ he means only the Worship of Christ's Divine Nature for he tells us in the following words that both the Natural and Mosaical Religion condemn the Worship of any Creature therefore Christ's Humane Nature being a Creature ought not to be worshipped Of the Worship paid to Christ I have said enough already but because our Author gives occasion for it by repeating his Charge of Idolatry I will consider what he has offered in its proper place Only here I shall mind him that the Compilers of the Apostles Creed have made no mention of the Worship of Christ but only of Faith in him At pag. 245. He goes on to prove that the Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Christian Religion Because it does not ascribe to Christ such Knowledg as is proper to the Supream God His first Proof is John 2. 25. He knew what was in Man To which the Historian had before answered thus The Knowledg which the Lord Christ had or now in his State of Exaltation hath of the Secrets of Mens Hearts is the pure Gift of and Revelation from God and the Divine Word abiding on him Rev. 1. 1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to shew unto his Servants Our Author would elude the strength of this Answer thus This saith he is a plain abuse of the Text and the Reason of it He knew what was in Man is the Reason assigned why he needed not external Information or Testimony of Man He needed not that any should testify of Man for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he himself knew what was in Man and knew all Men. Which according to the propriety of Words signifies an inherent Personal Knowledg in opposition to any external Manifestation and therefore to Revelation it self For he always knew all Men which cannot be done by Revelation which is particular and occasional Here one may plainly see what strange shifts Men are put to when they oppose Truth Who denies that those Words He knew what was in Man signify inherent Personal Knowledg Can any Man know any thing but by his inherent Personal Knowledg He that knows knows with his own Mind and therefore has an Inherent and Personal Knowledg But does it follow from thence that such a Knowledg is not from Revelation I hope it may be said of a Man inlightned by Revelation that he knows as well as of any other And yet thô such a Man be inspired he has an inherent Personal Knowledg for his own Mind knows inwardly what he did not know before But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says our Author he himself knew which according to the Propriety of Words signifies an inherent Personal Knowledg in opposition to Revelation No surely For then the Prophet Elisha was God for he knew what the King of Syria spake in his Bed-chamber 2 Kings 6. 12. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he himself knew what the King of Syria spake yet this